Tonight marked the 20th, and possibly last, televised debate among Republican candidates for president of the 2012 cycle.  On the whole, it wasn't an especially inspiring or memorable event, but because it was the final opportunity for each candidate to distinguish himself in this sort of setting (at least before Super Tuesday), the stakes were high.  My analysis of how each contender performed:
 

Newt Gingrich won the debate, vindicating his team's "let Newt be Newt" strategy.  Gone was the angry, embittered former Speaker.  Sneering Newt was repealed and replaced by supportive, "cheerful" Newt -- eager to agree with his opponents when they were right, politely pushing back only when necessary, and tenacious in his determination to steer most discussions into critiques of President Obama.  His first crack at John King's contraception question was the best offering of anyone on the subject.  On occasion, Gingrich exhibits a special capacity to make conservatives -- even those who may not support him -- stand up and cheer.  One such moment came during that response, when he lambasted the media's propensity to ask questions designed to make Republicans look like social extremists.  He noted that Barack Obama never once fielded a tough challenge on his shameful opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois (and his subsequent lies) during his litany of 2008 debates.  A brilliant point.  Newt also delivered the clearest and most forceful answer on the auto bailouts.  Not every answer was perfect, of course.  At the end of a fairly solid soliloquy on foreign policy, Gingrich said that America's enemies were "secure" under President Obama.  The line drew applause, but if he'd made that claim in a general election debate, Obama would have offered a very efffective rejoinder along the lines of, "you'll have to ask Osama Bin Laden about that last statement."  I'd also add that promising specific gas prices is a very risky endeavor for any political candidate.  Overall, though, a strong night for Newt.  Impressive.

Mitt Romney was, as ever, steady and serious throughout the evening; he didn't piece together his finest debate of the cycle, but he did just fine.  As expected, he made many appeals to executive leadership, regularly listing his accomplishments in the private sector, his leadership in turning around the 2002 Olympics, and his tenure in the Massachusetts governorship.  At times, his answers seemed rote and forced, but they delivered the messages he wanted to convey.  His strongest moments came in the first round of responses to the "birth control" controversy, and during the foreign policy segment, when he came across as deeply prepared and presidential.  Although he resorted to the lame debt ceiling attack against Rick Santorum, Romney managed to knock his top challenger off balance during the debate's opening round, a scrap from which Santorum never seemed to fully recover.  The former governor also missed a big opportunity on the very first question of the night, which was about the national debt.  Unlike some of the other candidates -- and certainly unlike Barack Obama -- Romney has a bona fide entitlement reform plan.  He should have mentioned it.  That being said, he did a decent job of incorporating his newly-released tax reform package into an answer or two, winning kudos from Gingrich.  One answer that is still bothering me was Romney's response to the challenge that he'd implemented a similar conscience-violating mandate regarding the morning after pill for rape victims in Massachusetts.  Romney flatly denied the whole thing, which wasn't entirely truthful (the complicated facts are laid out nicely in this NRO report).  All in all, Romney did nothing to disturb his upward trajectory in the Michigan and Arizona polls.

Rick Santorum was tonight's clear loser.  Although he offered a few flashes of excellence, Santorum's stumbling illustrated the perils of running for president with decades of Congressional votes hanging around your neck.  The former Senator was forced to explain and defend his support for earmarks (Paul and Gingrich did a better job of this), his decision to endorse Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in 2004 (his justification delved into a discussion of the intricacies of Senate Judicial Committee power structures -- which, while plausible, reeked of insiderdom), and most damagingly, No Child Left Behind.  Regarding that vote, Santorum essentially shrugged and said he "took one for the team."  For a guy who summed himself up with the word "courage," that was a startling weak moment.  Rich Lowry summarized Santorum's core problem perfectly: "Rick Santorum’s night was defined by explaining why he voted for things he opposed."  That's a very tough sell, and played directly into the Romney camp's "creature of Washington" narrative.  Santorum's stall plus Newt's good night equals a happy Romney campaign.

Ron Paul was a devastatingly effective Romney surrogate tonight, pummelling Santorum on his go-along big-government conservatism during the Bush years.  Although Romney landed a few big blows (pointing out that Arlen Specter was the 60th vote for Obama was one of them), Paul bloodied Santorum up more than anyone else.  He was also less unhinged on foreign policy than usual, stressing that he opposes Iranian nukes -- that's been tough to tell at times -- making a less shrill economic argument against nation building that will appeal to a lot of voters, and underscoring the importance of gaining Congressional approval for war.

Finally, a few stray thoughts:
 

(1) Despite Gingrich and Romney getting things off to a good start, the birth control discussion degenerated into a maddening morass of confusion.  As far as I can remember, none of the candidates clearly and unequiocally stated that Republicans do not want to ban or limit access to birth control in any way, and that any suggestion to the contrary is a red herring.  Several of them did a fine job expounding on religious liberty -- the real issue at stake -- but nobody stepped up and clearly debunked the Left's false insinuations.  Therefore, it was not a good five-to-ten minute stretch for the field or the party. 

(2) During the excruciatingly long discussion of earmarks, three of the four candidates were openly defending the practice, and the other one (Romney) was transparently scoring cheap points off of it.  Not a shining moment for Tea Party supporters, I'd imagine. 

(3) We've all complained that there have been too many GOP debates.  I doubt anyone, except perhaps cable news executives, would disagree.  But is now the best time to stop these things?  The race is extremely volatile.  The vast majority of states haven't voted yet.  Only four rivals remain.  If anything, now might be the time when debates might actually be useful.  I'm not pining for weekly boxing matches like we had for much of the fall, but zero between now and the convention?  I may expand on this thought in a future post...but for now, I'll turn this show over to you.  Scorecards in the comments section, please.

UPDATE - A full transcript of the debate is available HERE.

Well, this could finally be it.  I'm not sure whether to feel nostalgia or relief.  8pm ET. CNN.  Follow our all-star team's sharp, real-time coverage below, and provide your own running scorecard in the comments section.  I'll see you afterwards with a full recap.

It's been a long and bumpy ride, but it appears that CNN will air the season finale of The Republican Debate Show tonight at 8pm ET.  Two planned pre-Super Tuesday forums have been called off, and a third event in late March isn't likely to survive either.  So, somewhat astonishingly, tonight's tilt could be the last primary debate of the cycle.  The four remaining GOP hopefuls will face off in Mesa, Arizona, hoping to influence voters in that state, Michigan, and beyond.  Here's what to expect from each candidate:
 

Mitt Romney has captured the lead in both states that vote next week, even though he still trails Santorum nationally.  It seems as though his campaign is finally taking many observers' constructive criticisms to heart: They're crafting a goal-oriented agenda the former governor can embrace and parlay into a positive, forward-looking campaign.  Attack dog Romney was brutally effecient against Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, but that negative approach has run its course -- at least in the primary.  Expect Romney to tout his new tax reform plan quite a bit this evening.  It's new, it's good, and it gives him a strong narrative to discuss.  In that same vein, I don't anticipate many harsh attacks against his competitors from Romney tonight.  If anything, he'll reprise a major theme of his CPAC speech by highlighting the importance of executive experience.  The obvious subtext: "I have lots of it, none of these guys do."  By and large, though, he'll likely work to flip every question into an attack on President Obama, contrasting his vision for the country with the results Obama's failed leadership has produced.

Rick Santorum is the national frontrunner according to virtually every major poll.  Tonight will mark the first -- and as mentioned above, perhaps only -- GOP debate in which the spotlight will shine brightest on his podium.  Previous leaders of the pack have discovered that the media scrutiny that accompanies success can be intense.  Santorum is no fool; he realizes that a barrage of tough questions are likely headed his way, including many that may focus on frustratingly irrelevant topics.  I suspect we'll hear a lot about Santorum's religious outlook, his past comments on birth control, prenatal screenings, and homosexuality.  Santorum's challenge will be to answer these questions in such a way that eludes "gotchas," cheerfully explains his beliefs, avoids sanctimony, and convinces average voters that the caricature the Left and media will paint of him in a possible general election (knuckle-dragging, anti-women theocrat) don't comport with reality.  If he can accomplish this feat, he will help himself immensely.  If not, it could be a decisive evening in the wrong direction.

Newt Gingrich may be a pleasure to watch tonight.  His advisors say they're unleashing him with a "let Newt be Newt" approach.  This will supposedly involve eschewing attacks on his Republican brethren, which has been one of his least attractive elements of his campaign.  Flailing, bitter Newt isn't appealing.  Upbeat, GOP-good-cop, Obama-and-media-defying Newt is. Again relegated to bottom-tier status in most polling, Gingrich will cleverly circle back to the formula that vaulted him from an also-ran to the top of the heap in December (and again in South Carolina).  If that's the case, look out Democrats and moderators.  Mitt Romney couldn't be happier with this approach.  If Newt reminds some GOP voters why they liked him in the first place, he could reap a small bump of support, which would likely siphon votes away from Santorum.  The former Pennsylvania Senator might also appreciate a friendlier Newt, too.  If CNN's anchors get too carried away with slanted questions about Santorum's faith, Newt might jump in an act as his fellow Catholic's enforcer.

Ron Paul is in this thing for the long haul, and his strategy rarely shifts.  He'll be preaching the Ron Paul gospel every chance he gets.  But might he continue to help play spoiler?  Throughout the debate season, Paul hasn't hesitated to go after almost anyone on stage, with one notable exception: Mitt Romney.  Paul's campaign is running attack ads that only hit Santorum in Michigan.  Will this game of Romney/Paul game of patty-cake continue?

The Townhall/Hot Air editorial team will offer live coverage of the debate as it unfolds. Stay tuned after the debate for my recap -- we'll see if any of my pre-analysis is vindicated by events.

The Treasury Department will unveil President Barack Obama's corporate tax reform plan Wednesday -- a framework that would reduce the overall rate paid by corporations, a senior administration official told CNN. The president's tax plan is intended to "enhance American competitiveness by simplifying the tax code and eliminating dozens of tax loopholes and subsidies, incentivizing job creation and investment here at home and lowering the business rate while broadening the tax base," the official said. The proposal calls for lowering the overall corporate tax rate from 35% to 28%, and the effective rate for manufacturing to 25%. The official, who laid out the plan's broad framework for CNN, said the proposal is essential to fixing a system that is "uncompetitive, unfair, and inefficient." The official told CNN the lower rate would be largely funded by eliminating dozens of tax loopholes and subsidies, and broadening the business tax base.

The White House gets points for admitting that our system is "uncompetitive, unfair, and inefficient."  That is surely true.  As it stands today, the US corporate tax rate is tied for the highest in the industrialized world.  Applause is also in order for at least paying lip service to lowering corporate rates while eliminating some loopholes.  This general approach to tax reform  has been advocated by everyone from Grover Norquist, to Paul Ryan, to the president's (mostly ignored) fiscal commission.  However, there are major flaws with Obama's plan, the biggest of which is that it's a giant political head fake. 

President Obama has had more than three years to do offer leadership to rectify our uncompetitive and inefficient tax system.  For two of those years, he had a fully compliant Congress at his disposal.  Yet when his debt commission recommended significant tax reforms, he moved on none of them.  Now, an election looms, and Republicans are poised to make tax reform and economic growth central issues in the campaign.  By rolling out this tardy tax plan, Obama is inoculating himself against political charges of inaction.  "See, I've proposed something that sounds reasonable to most people," he'll say, inevitably invoking one of this favored tropes by noting that a majority of economists from "across the political spectrum" endorse his ideas.  But does he have any intention whatsoever on acting on this plan?  I doubt it.  Pardon my skepticism, but I tend to believe there's a reason the president couldn't be bothered to even show up for the announcement of his own plan, a task he pawned off onto Tim Geithner.  Barack Obama is not a modest man.  If his administration were releasing a major policy initiative to which he was deeply committed, I tend to think he would insist on being its public face and top salesman.  Remember, he has a gift.  By merely issuing a perfunctory written statement, Obama signaled his ambivalence to the rapacious tax-hike-and-spenders within his base.

Beyond my contention that the White House has no genuine intention to shepherd this legislation through (this is, I admit, an unprovable questioning of motives), there are also policy shortcomings with this plan.  First, despite all the talk about cutting rates, Obama's plan actually raises the tax burden on US corporations.  A CNBC report today indicated that the administration hopes to wring an extra quarter-trillion out of corporations with this move.  Second, it focuses exclusively on corporate taxes, which side-steps the need for comprehensive reform of the entire tax code -- a necessity that Obama's sundry commissions have emphasized.  And third, it explicitly ignores a recommendation of Obama's jobs council, which suggested exempting foreign income from taxation if repatriated to the US.  Obama not only dismissed this idea, he did the opposite, introducing a new minimum US tax on international corporations' foreign earnings.  AEI's Jim Pethokoukis has a lot of the heavy lifting in examining this proposal, and he comes away decidedly underwhelmed:
 

The current U.S. economic recovery is arguably the worst in modern American history. Incomes are flat, housing is moribund, and the past three years have seen the longest stretch of high unemployment in this country since the Great Depression. Yet President Barack Obama—with the backing of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner—has the temerity to propose a corporate tax reform plan that would actually raise the tax burden on American business by $250 billion over a decade (and de facto on workers, too) without lowering rates to an internationally competitive level. This is a terrible, terrible plan.

Real pro-growth corporate tax policy would eliminate tax breaks, dramatically lower tax rates, and only tax profits earned at home. The Obama plan would actually make the corporate tax code and the U.S. economy less competitive and less productive. But the proposal does neatly fit into the president’s Occupy-inspired campaign theme that wealthy Americans and greedy corporations are to blame for the Great Recession and rising income inequality. Besides, how can Democrats ever raise taxes on the middle-class to pay for all their spending ideas without first socking it to the 1 percent and to business?

Along the lines of my second criticism above, Pethokoukis notes that Obama's proposed corporate tax rate cut, coupled with his individual tax rate hikes on the rich would encourage increased tax avoidance:
 

Obama and Geithner would take the top individual tax rate to 40 percent, leaving a 12 percentage-point gap with the corporate tax rate. This creates a huge incentive for tax sheltering.

Don't believe Jim?  Britain's leaders are re-discovering economic reality the hard way:
 

You're already aware that I'm no fan of some Republicans' counter-productive and unrealistic public fantasies about a very late entry into the presidential field, possibly forcing a brokered convention.  Sadly, it appears the din isn't going to dissipate any time soon, thanks to statements from public officials and unrelenting news media buzz.  Former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour -- who decided against a presidential bid of his own early on in the cycle -- mused about the "outside chance" of a contested convention in an interview with NRO, suggesting that Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels could still be nominated under the right circumstances:
 

Barbour is aware of the clamor in certain circles for his friend Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels to enter the fray. Once again, “It is highly unlikely but it could happen,” he says. “It is certainly more of a possibility than ever in the past. However, in the past, the possibility was zero, so to say the odds are higher than zero is not something that, I think, you’re going to want to bet on."  Daniels says he will not reconsider. But should he? “I would have liked it if he had run. He decided not to. That was his decision,” Barbour says. “I’m not going to get in the business of telling any friend of mine, ‘This is what you ought to do.’ I’m not going to do it publicly or privately. And I haven’t done it, publicly or privately.”

In Barbour's defense, it looks as though reporter Bob Costa pressed him on this remote possibility, so he wasn't proactively offering unsolicited thoughts on the issue. Nevertheless, it promulgates the meme.  Sure enough, national pollster Quinnipiac is now running surveys asking Republican voters which substitute nominee they might like to see emerge from a potential brokered convention:
 

But if the GOP convention picks a new candidate, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is the top choice of Republicans, with 32 percent, followed by former governors Sarah Palin of Alaska and Jeb Bush of Florida with 20 percent each and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels with 15 percent…“Gov. Chris Christie remains the knight on the white horse in many Republican minds,” Brown said.

This is just absurd.  Chris Christie has done everything he possibly can to convince anyone who will listen that he will not run for president in 2012.  Nothing has changed for him, and the same applies to Daniels.  Jeb Bush has also categorically denied a presidential run, and has a surname issue to boot.  And although I'm not entirely sure what's motivating Palin's recent conspicuous stoking of the brokered convention fire, voters will recall that she chose not to run.  Plus, can anyone envision a contingency in which she, of all people, manages to prevail in this already-mythical convention?  Even as her favorable numbers crept up last fall, a supermajority of Republicans said they didn't want her to get into the race.  I fail to see how she could claim the mantle of a consensus candidate.  Then again, this entire discussion is academic because there very simply will not be a brokered convention.   "Then why do you keep writing about it?" you may ask.  Fair question.  I'm thinking about ignoring this entire distraction from here on out, but because it's been getting wide coverage in the press (often presented with an "isn't this exciting?" tone), I felt compelled to explain why the whole enterprise merely (a) indulges a media fetish -- they're obsessed with recapturing the drama of old -- and (b) boosts Obama's re-election chances by  running down the current (read: only) Republican field.

I posted an extensive analysis of recent polling trends yesterday, so I'll keep this one relatively short.  A new NBC/Marist poll shows Mitt Romney leading comfortably in Arizona ahead of tonight's debate ("the Ash Clash?"), while Michigan remains a jump ball:
 

In Michigan – which has turned into a make-or-break contest for Romney – the former Massachusetts governor gets the support of 37 percent of likely GOP primary voters, including those who are leaning toward a particular candidate. Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, gets 35 percent, and he’s followed by Texas Rep. Ron Paul at 13 percent and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 8 percent.  But in Arizona, Romney is on safer ground: He receives the support of 43 percent of likely GOP primary voters, Santorum gets 27 percent, Gingrich 16 percent and Paul 11 percent.

Michigan remains very rocky general election territory for the GOP, as Obama holds wide leads over all possible challengers:
 

Turning to the general-election race in November, Obama leads Romney in Michigan by nearly 20 points among registered voters, 51 to 33 percent, with 15 percent undecided. Against Paul, the president’s lead is 22 points (53 to 31 percent); against Santorum, it’s 26 points (55 to 29 percent); and against Gingrich, it’s 28 points (56 to 28 percent)...But Arizona is tougher territory for the president, whose approval rating among registered voters in the state is just 38 percent.

Marist's numbers show every GOP candidate leading Obama in the Grand Canyon State, except for Newt Gingrich.  A similar dynamic applies to down-ticket Senate races.  In Michigan, incumbent Democrat Sen. Debbie Stabenow holds a big advantage over Republican Pete Hoekstra, who is still recovering from a Super Bowl ad that some described as racially insensitive.  Michigan voters weren't impressed.  Out in the desert, likely Republican Senate nominee Rep. Jeff Flake bests his closest Democrat opponent by double-digits. 

Millions of Catholics and other Christians worldwide are observing Ash Wednesday today, marking the beginning of Lent.  For many, this practice entails attending Mass and having black ashes imposed on the forehead in the shape of a cross.  Traditionally, the faithful display the ashes until they wear off, although there aren't strict guidelines.  Two Republican presidential candidates -- Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich -- are practicing Catholics; both will participate in the final pre-Super Tuesday debate in Arizona later this evening.  It's conceivable that half of the candidates on stage will be wearing ashes, which could have implications beyond representing simple, public expressions of faith.  All four Republican candidates have excoriated the Obama administration's recent unconstitutional affront to religious liberty, an ongoing battle in which the Catholic Church is on the front lines.  The topic of Obama's anti-conscience mandate is likely to arise during tonight's proceedings, and the optics of up to half of the GOP field articulating fierce opposition to the president's decision while wearing a cross of ashes could be a rather powerful witness. 

Rick Santorum's campaign has also been grappling with how to respond to a video that surfaced yesterday, showing the former Senator describing a contemporary "spiritual war" in which Satan is intent on "attack[ing] our institutions."  Santorum's comments came during a 2008 speech at Florida's Ave Maria University.  (For a thoughtful, non-hysterical take on why some of these remarks are problematic, read this post from Forbes' Josh Barro).  Much of the debate surrounding the possibility of a Santorum nomination has centered on whether the candidate is overly theological in his worldview, and how that might impact his electoral prospects and/or potential presidency.  If he wears ashes tonight, the resulting images are destined to feature prominently in future media coverage of the intersection of Santorum's faith and political agenda.  An interesting consideration in today's media-saturated political climate.

I've reached out to both the Santorum and Gingrich campaigns to ask about this.  For what it's worth, Team Newt has informed me that Gingrich isn't planning on attending Mass today -- which the candidate has confirmed, (correctly) pointing out that it's "not a holy day of obligation."  The Santorum campaign has not responded to my inquiry, although my colleague Ed Morrissey says his source within Santorum's camp has "no idea" what the former Senator's plans are in this regard.  I'll leave you with two clips.  The first was flagged by our own Kevin Glass, who had a chuckle at two British news anchors' puzzlement over Vice President Joe Biden's ashes two years ago.  "What's happened to his head?"
 

It's worth noting that Biden, a Catholic, was one of the voices inside the White House warning against the mandate.  He was overruled. Finally, here's the Heritage Foundation's video on the topic, featuring commentary from policy experts, lawmakers, and serious thinkers on religion and ethics:
 

Heritage provocatively calls the new policy's assault on religious liberty "Obamacare's first casualty."  Indeed.  Last week, I attempted to explain the disparate polling and political framing on this controversy.  CNN offers a newer data point, which mirrors Rasmussen's finding that a majority Americans oppose the mandate.

UPDATE - Santorum is campaigning with ash on his forehead in Arizona today, so I'd  imagine the marking will stay for the debate.

We've already stumbled through the electoral fantasyland inhabited by mainstream media figures and certain GOP elites alike, so let's return to reality, shall we?  This week's polling data is fascinating on several fronts.  Let's begin with the GOP nominating contest -- you know, the one with actual declared candidates vying for votes.  Sen. Rick Santorum holds a ten-point national lead over Gov. Mitt Romney among Republican voters: 
 

In the Feb. 15-19 Gallup Daily tracking rolling average, Santorum is ahead of Romney by 36% to 26%, with Newt Gingrich at 13% and Ron Paul at 11%. This marks Santorum's largest lead to date. Santorum had moved to within two points of Romney, 30% to 32%, by the end of last week. Prior to Santorum's surge, Romney led Santorum 37% to 16% in Gallup Daily tracking ending Feb. 6, the day before Santorum won primaries and caucuses in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado.

That's the unalloyed good news for Santorum backers.  A double-digit lead is hard to argue with.  That being said, Romney backers are likely to emphasize the results (and importance) of another recent Gallup survey that tweaks the question:
 

In a separate USA Today/Gallup survey conducted Feb. 16-19, all Americans were asked which of the two candidates -- Romney or Santorum -- they believed would have the best chance of beating Barack Obama in November. Overall, 54% of Americans named Romney and 29% chose Santorum. Fewer Republicans are undecided on this issue, leaving 58% who say Romney has the best chance of beating Obama, while 32% choose Santorum.

As we've seen throughout the cycle, these national numbers tend to ebb and flow based on primary results and other outside events.  Next week's contests in Michigan and Arizona will be especially pivotal because they'll set the table for Super Tuesday.  Tuesday's results will be especially impactful because there are no debates between February 28th and March 6th; both scheduled forums have been canceled.  Romney maintains a slight lead in Arizona, far smaller than it was at the beginning of the month.  It also remains to be seen how the Sheriff Babeu kerfuffle will affect the race, if at all (Babeu was a Romney surrogate).  The dynamic of the Michigan brouhaha is also shifting.  Last week, Santorum opened up a large lead in the Great Lakes State, but brand new surveys show the race is now either much closer or tied:
 

Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are in a statistical dead heat in Michigan a week ahead of the vote, according to a new poll of Republican voters in the state. Romney took 32 percent and Santorum 30 percent in a one-day poll of Michigan GOP voters by Mitchell/Rosetta Stone conducted on Monday. Romney's lead is within the poll's margin of error.

Couple these numbers with the the Santorum camp's new expectations management tactic in Michigan, and it seems as though a Romney comeback is brewing.  It sounds like he's hitting something of a groove on the stump, too.  When a Canadian questioner told Romney he couldn't have his national healthcare card at a Tuesday rally, Romney deadpanned, "I don't want it."  The crowd erupted.  Romney also plans to roll out a major tax and entitlement reform proposal in Detroit on Friday.  Conservative economist and television host Larry Kudlow has seen the plan and pronounces it "bold."  Tearing down your opponents with high-dollar attack ads is one thing; commending your own goals and talents to voters is another. Could Romney finally be pivoting to a "positive, results-focused campaign" some of us have been asking for?  The new polling also contains good news for Republicans, generally.  President Obama's temporary blip is waning, dragging down his head-to-head numbers against Santorum and Romney.  Rasmussen pegs each Republican within two points of Obama, while Gallup puts Romney ahead by four and Santorum in a virtual dead heat:
 

Meanwhile, President Obama's standing against two potential Republican rivals has ebbed a bit. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney leads the president 50%-46% among registered voters, Romney's strongest showing against him to date. Obama edges former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum by a single percentage point, 49%-48%.

Obama's job approval is edging back down into the low-to-mid 40s and is back underwater, where it has languished for months.  As I indicated in my previous post, bad housing news and grim unemployment forecasts probably won't help his cause, either.  Not to worry, the Washington Post assures us -- Obama's still reeling in campaign cash hand-over-fist, and he has much more cash on hand than all of his possible opponents combined.  True.  But then again, he has the luxury of not facing a contested primary.  It also helps when you can dress up campaigning as official business, and stick taxpayers with the tab (yes, this is a bipartisan exercise, but Obama's abused it more than his predecessors).  While we're at it, let's not forget Republicans' huge SuperPAC advantage, which prompted The One to abandon his "principles" a few weeks back.  We now know why he did it:
 

Newly filed financial reports offer a fairly strong clue as to why President Obama's campaign decided to get behind super PAC fundraising.  Priorities USA, the political committee founded by former Obama aides, raised a grand total of $59,000 in January.  That's enough to buy a snazzy car with "Obama 2012" stickers on it or perhaps cover travel expenses for staff, but not enough to compete on the airwaves. By comparison, the pro-Mitt Romney Restore Our Future group raised $6.6 million in January. Winning our Future, the pro-Newt Gingrich fund, raised $11 million. 

I'll leave you with the latest attack ad running in Michigan.  It targets Rick Santorum as a "fake fiscal conservative."  Romney World strikes again?  Not this time:
 

The confounding Romney-Paul alliance lives on.

UPDATE - There's another unhelpful factor at play for Obama: Rising gas prices.  This trend hits working Americans where it hurts and opens the door for the GOP to whack the president hard on his pathetic Keystone decision, about which Jay Carney is still lying.

Are whispers among GOP insiders intensifying over the prospect of a brokered convention?  CNN says party elders are growing increasingly skittish over the state of the Republican presidential primary:
 

In a whispering campaign not ready to go public, some senior Republicans are so anxious about the state of the GOP race they are actually considering the unheard of: a scenario that would lead to another candidate entering the Republican primary race, and potentially an open convention. They are not unhappy enough, however, to go on the record calling for another candidate to enter the fray...Rick Santorum's recent rise in the polls - and what some see as his electability problems - has struck a nerve with Republicans. "There is something called agenda control," said one unaffiliated GOP strategist. "Santorum does not have it. Instead of talking about the economy, he's been going down rabbit holes for the last four or five days." Santorum's emphasis on cultural issues may intensify his conservative and evangelical support and help him win the nomination or at least differentiate himself from Newt Gingrich. The fear is he may also be narrowing his support in a general election population.

And Santorum's surging candidacy is not the only concern for senior Republicans. Mitt Romney's inability to close the deal has also raised eyebrows - and angst. And the anxiety will only intensify should Romney lose his home state of Michigan in the primary on February 28, several senior Republicans told CNN. "Michigan is the whole shooting match," said one senior GOP strategist not aligned with a campaign. Says another: "If Romney loses Michigan, all hell breaks loose." Given that real possibility, one knowledgeable GOP source confirms that some Republicans are circulating the deadlines and the basic math that would allow another candidate to get into the nomination fight and take it all the way to the convention. More than a half dozen states' filing deadlines have yet to pass. A majority of the delegates to the national convention are still up for grabs. One more factor to be considered: many states are choosing their delegates proportionally, which makes it easier for a candidate pick up delegates without outright winning a state.

Santorum's highlighting of cultural issues could play well for him in the short-term. But the worry among Republicans is that his views will raise the question of his electability. "After a while, Republican voters will start asking whether this is the guy to take on Obama," says one GOP strategist. In addition to the fear of a potential loss to Obama, some Republicans worry about losing the House of Representatives if Santorum were at the top of the ticket. “There is no faith he would bring independent or moderate voters. If he does well on Super Tuesday you’ll have serious people talking about convention strategies etc,” one Republican congressional leadership aide told CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash. "Santorum would so alienate voters, especially women…he would be lucky to carry a dozen states," one senior Republican told CNN, referring to Santorum's disapproval of pre-natal screening.

(1) Republican voters abhor the notion of a last-minute substitute candidate, as well they should.  This nominating process has been underway for the better part of a year.  Although few conservatives are genuinely thrilled with the field as it stands, they at least appreciate that the remaining candidates have participated in the rough-and-tumble business of democracy, upon which our republic is built.  The concept of an elite cabal privately scheming to undo the voters' will is insulting.  Such a power play would be an affront to the millions of voters who have already cast ballots, to the thousands of donors who have contributed hard-earned money to one or more of the declared candidates, and to the candidates themselves, who have played by the rules and subjected themselves and their families to searing media scrutiny.

(2) As one of the cavalcade of (unnamed) strategists quoted in the story above asserts, this anti-democratic gambit would stamp the GOP's ticket to Loserville in the fall.  Even if the surprise nominee turned out to be a movement conservative (Sarah Palin has suggested she'd be open to "helping" the party under the right circumstances), the disenfranchised Republican electorate would likely remain profoundly disenchanted by the whole spectacle.  I suspect independent voters would be equally nauseated by the stench of backroom deals and democracy circumvention -- of which President Obama is a great fan, incidentally.  Also, as the press reported all of these developments with breathless glee, they'd be sure to raise plenty of brow-furrowed questions about whether the new candidate had been properly vetted.  And they'd be right to do so.  Candidates' instincts and character are often exposed by the unforgiving glare of the national spotlight.  Independent of one's feelings about any or all of them, we have learned a lot about Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul over the last year.  Put simply, a political shotgun marriage is not preferable to the lengthy courtship of retail campaigning, debates, fundraising, and votes.  If party elites are intent on destroying the base's trust in the Republican brand, this would surely be an effective coup de grace.  Imagine yourself in a polling booth during a future primary contest, trying to fight off the nagging question of whether your vote matters, or if the powers that be might simply overrule you if they're displeased with your choice.

(3) All of this chatter about a brokered convention -- all three cablers are discussing it at length today -- is counter-productive and provides oxygen to a Democrat narrative.  The pernicious meme is that the Republican field is so terrible that none of the candidates stand a chance against Obama in November.  Not only does fresh polling suggest otherwise, persistent housing and unemployment woes will continue to plague the incumbent.  RCP numbers guru Sean Trende says Obama's recent polling bounce appears to be fading.  This president's failed agenda renders him exceedingly vulnerable.  But that truth is obscured when influential Republicans continually perpetuate the argument that the general election is a lost cause absent a (to be determined) white knight galloping in to save the day.  In short, these leaked grumbles help exactly no one, except for President Obama -- especially because a brokered convention isn't going to happen.

UPDATE - National Review editor Rich Lowry, whom I respect immensely and who has an incisive new column defending Rick Santorum's social conservatism up today, says he'd be "perfectly happy" to see an alternate scenario play out:
 

The Republican race so far has been a contest between the weakness of Romney and the weakness of his opponents. Romney looks incredibly vulnerable at the moment in Michigan and even in Arizona, but Santorum may be frittering away his opportunity–and so it goes. If Romney does lose Michigan or Michigan and Arizona, who would be the Republican savior? It would have to be someone who really wants to be president, has a taste for high political risk, and has very little to lose. The party doesn’t seem to have many people with those qualities, or the field would already have been bigger.

I respectfully disagree, for the reasons enumerated above.

Three years ago today, President Obama signed into law the $825 Billion "stimulus" package passed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's Democratic Congressional super-majority.  This enormous expenditure of borrowed money was sold and justified as a means to jump-start the American economy and "save or create" four million jobs.  It has failed on its own terms (updated from a previous post):
 

(1) The president's economic advisors projected that in the stimulus would halt unemployment at eight percent.  In its absence, they warned, unemployment could reach as high as nine percent.  This was a major selling point of the bill.  Two years and hundreds of billions of dollars later, the national unemployment rate remains above eight percent, and isn't even close to where it "should" be (six percent), based on the administration's projections.  If the active labor force were the same size as it was when Obama took office (it has shrunk considerably due to discouraged workers), the national unemployment rate would be 11 percent.  The true "U6" unemployment rate remains above 15 percent.

(2) The president said the stimulus would "lift two million Americans from poverty."  US poverty levels have now reached all-time highs.  In the year after the stimulus passed, 2.6 million Americans fell into poverty.  Overall, 6.3 million more Americans are living in poverty today than when Obama took office.

(3) The president said middle class family incomes would soar by thousands of dollars thanks to his stimulus.  As reported above, the national median income (a good measure of the middle class' collective financial standing) has dipped to its lowest level since 1997.

(4) The president incessantly trumpeted the promise of countless "shovel-ready" projects to sell the public on the stimulus.  Earlier this year, Obama himself joked that such projects didn't really exist.  Hilarious!

(5) The president guaranteed "unprecedented transparency" in the process of doling out stimulus dollars.  Funds were then released to phantom Congressional districts and tax cheats, and were used to subsidize wasteful, redundant, and useless pork projects.  As we now know, this "unprecedented transparency" also entailed rushing approval for reckless multimillion dollar loan guarantees to a politically-connected "green" firm, ignoring internal warning flags, and deliberately concealing evidence of impending failure until it was too late for Congress to intervene.  Unprecedented!

(6) As I've discussed on several occasions, even if you *fully accept* the White House's own "jobs saved and/or created by the stimulus" numbers, the math works out to nearly $300,000 per job.  Early analysis suggests that the president's 2012 jobs plan would likely trigger a reprise of that breathtakingly inefficient undertaking.  Also, an independent on-the-ground study that doesn't rely on flawed government multipliers and formulas to measure the stimulus' true employment impact reveals that OMB and CBO's numbers are way off.  To wit, CBO's latest estimate -- again, based on multipliers, not observations -- shows that the stimulus may have "saved or created" as few as 600,000 jobs.

(7) Roughly 1.5 million fewer Americans have jobs today than when the stimulus passed.

In Congressional testimony yesterday, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner served up what might just be the political sound-byte of the year.  His comment rises to that level because it perfectly encapsulates the Democrat Party's approach to confronting fiscal reality and the real threat of insolvency.  For Geithner's comment to have maximum impact, a little context is in order.  Below you'll see House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan -- last seen filleting Obama's budget director over the White House's FY 2013 blueprint -- engaging in a spirited back-and-forth with Geithner over the same document.  Ryan calls up a chart pulled from the administration-produced documents to highlight the president's indisputable failure on curbing long term debt and spending.  Again, this is the White House's own chart:
 

In the clip you're about to see, Geithner makes two claims.  First, that the president's 2013 budget meets the "critical test" of "restoring our deficits to a more sustainable position."  As I wrote earlier this week, the closest this budget ever comes to balancing is in 2017, when our national balance sheet will witness an annual deficit of over $600 Billion -- more than double President Bush's average deficit.  Geithner's idea of responsible sustainability also entails spending $47 Trillion over ten years and adding $11 Trillion to the national debt, which is already approaching $16 Trillion.  Good to know.   Second, Geithner says that Obama's new budget and Ryan's 2012 budget aren't too far apart ("it's a pretty small gap") when it comes to debt levels over the next ten years.  Although Ryan's budget offers a significantly lower spending trajectory over Geithner's cherry-picked ten year window (as the second graph Ryan pulls up demonstrates), Geithner's point isn't entirely inaccurate.  The Ryan budget, as you may recall, leaves the current entitlement spending regime intact for current and soon-to-be seniors.  Only those 54 and younger would experience Ryan's necessary reforms, so the gargantuan difference doesn't start developing until the "out years" of future decades.  Ryan's second chart shows that the Path to Prosperity substantially lowers unaffordable future expenditures and balances the budget.  The president's plan?  Well, just look at the above chart again.

The White House admits that their budget offers nothing in the way of leadership to stave off the massive debt crisis that the chart above illustrates in stark relief.  The biggest issues of our time -- the looming entitlement and debt crisis -- require urgent action.  America must defuse our ticking fiscal time bomb and show creditors that we are serious about curbing and controlling our unsustainable trajectory of obligations, or else we will be consumed by a Greece-like Supernova.  Admittedly, such solutions require leadership and entail political risk.  Paul Ryan and Republicans have taken a stand, in the form of their 2012 budget, and will do so again in their 2013 version.  The Left has demagogued and lied about Ryan's plan endlessly, but do they have an alternative solution of their own?  That question brings us to the quote of the year.  I'd encourage you to watch the full video, but the money bit comes at the very end:
 

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, speaking on behalf of the Obama White House, to Rep. Paul Ryan: "You are right to say we're not coming before you today to say 'we have a definitive solution to that long term problem.'  What we do know is, we don't like yours."

Those two sentences speak to a mentality so bereft of intellectual vigor, so stunningly and candidly shallow, so thoroughly irresponsible, so politically myopic, selfish, and cowardly, that it should disqualify this crew from a second term in office.  What a disgrace.  Remember this moment the next time Democrats accuse the GOP of being the "do nothing," intransigent, "party of no."

To the surprise of nobody, a former corporate CEO turned Republican governor has endorsed a fellow former corporate CEO turned Republican governor for president.  Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder used a Detroit News Op/Ed to offer his support to Mitt Romney ahead of the state's important primary a week from next Tuesday:
 

Let's start with one important fact. Our country has never elected a president born and raised in Michigan. Mitt Romney was born in Detroit. His father served with distinction as governor. Before that, he was president of American Motors. Mitt grew up with the prospects of the auto industry and of Michigan discussed around the dinner table. He has deep ties to our state. Mitt understands the challenges confronting Michigan as few Americans do. Mitt Romney is not a career politician. He stands alone among the candidates, Democrat and Republican alike, with his extensive experience in business, having spent two decades helping to start companies and turn around failing ones. Most important, he has a credible plan for jumpstarting the economy and putting it on the path of sustained growth.

Washington is not on a sustainable course. Mitt Romney will change the direction. What Gov. Romney is proposing is not a wish list drawn in the air, but something that can actually be accomplished collaboratively with Congress. As governor of Massachusetts, he balanced the budget while cutting taxes 19 times, even as he was working with a Legislature that was overwhelmingly Democratic. Upon taking office, his state had a $3 billion deficit. By the end of his term, it had accumulated a $2 billion "rainy day" fund. Both in the public and private sectors, Mitt Romney has a remarkable record of getting things done. As president, Gov. Romney has pledged to work in partnership with states so they have the freedom to devise their own health policies.

He will move immediately to reduce non-defense discretionary spending by 5 percent. He also sees a clear path to bring spending below 20 percent of Gross Domestic Product in four years, which is in line with historical precedent. The country can't afford to do business as usual. It's time for collaboration, fiscal courage and innovation to take root in Washington. Given his accomplishments, background, character, experience, ideas and intellect, Mitt Romney has what it takes to build a foundation for America's success in this global economy. I hope all Michiganians will join me in supporting the candidacy of this favorite son of our great state.

A few quick reactions:  (1) As I wrote earlier in the week, this predictable development really only helps Romney in the sense that it denies Santorum another significant shot in the arm, which a surprise endorsement from Snyder would have been.  (2) Gov. Snyder is presiding over a state left in utter shambles by the detested Jennifer Granholm (currently a Current TV "star"), so his approval numbers aren't exactly glittering.  (3) While Snyder makes a number of valid points on Romney's behalf, it's important to note that Romney isn't a "career politician" in large measure because he's lost more political races than he's won.  That doesn't take anything away from his exceptional success in the private sector and at the 2002 Olympics, but let's not pretend that Romney hasn't been running for office since the mid-90s.  (4) Is Romney actually one of Michigan's "favorite sons"?  At the moment, he's trailing Rick Santorum and Barack Obama by double digits in his home state, according to some polls.  The favorite son label may apply, but the jury is still out.

Another major headline today directly pertains to Michigan's economy: GM registered record profits last year -- which is, of course, good news.  That being said, President Obama and his big government cheerleading squad will undoubtedly crow that this outcomes "proves" that the auto bailouts were an unmitigated success.  Here's a piece of the story:
 

General Motors earned its largest profit ever in 2011, two years after it nearly collapsed into financial ruin . . . GM also said Thursday that its 47,500 blue-collar workers in the U.S. will get $7,000 profit-sharing checks in March.

Let's first recall that Ford, which refused a government handout, posted record profits in 2010 without the assistance of any taxpayer cash.  Liberals will counter that Ford would have gone down with the ship if Chrysler and GM hadn't been rescued by taxpayers.  Oh, right.  Taxpayers.  Notice that UAW union members are receiving $7,000 profit-sharing checks to celebrate the blank ink -- which would be fine and dandy if GM didn't still owe US taxpayers billions.  Unsustainable union benefits were a huge component of GM and Chrysler's unsustainable business model in the first place.  The Obama bailout handed Chrysler over to the union, and now GM's profits are heading into union members' pockets before the debt it repaid to the Treasury.  Forgive me for not doing cartwheels over this great news.  NRO's Jim Geraghty summarizes nicely:
 

Amazing how easy it is to return to profitability when the federal government gives you $60 billion, with zero interest and no particular deadline on paying it back, and lets you write off up to $45 billion in old losses.

Mere details.  The mantra will be that Obama (but not Bush) saved the auto industry, establishing that government interventions are wonderful in the process!  Let the good times roll...

Allahpundit is dubious over whether they'll have much of an impact, but the Angry Left is mobilizing to tilt the GOP nominating process in Rick Santorum's favor.  Why?  I'll let them explain:
 

It's time for us to take an active role in the GOP nomination process. That's right, it's time for those of us who live in open primary and caucus states—Michigan, North Dakota, Vermont and Tennessee in the next three weeks—to head out and cast a vote for Rick Santorum.

Republican turnout has sucked, and appears to be getting worse by the contest. Unlike the 2008 Democratic primaries, which helped President Barack Obama and the Democrats to build a national organization, the GOP is an organizational disaster, with waning voter interest. That means that it takes fewer votes to have an impact than if Republican turnout was maxed out.

Several of the contests have produced razor-thin margins of victory. Rick Santorum won Iowa by 34 votes, Mitt Romney "won" Maine by 194 votes. It won't take many of us to swing contests the way we want them to swing.

The longer this GOP primary drags on, the better the numbers for Team Blue. Not only is President Barack Obama rising in comparison to the clowns in the GOP field, but GOP intensity is down—which would have repercussions all the way down the ballot.

The longer this thing drags out, the more unpopular the Republican presidential pretenders become. Just look at Mitt Romney's trajectory, which followed Herman Cain's trajectory, and Newt Gingrich's trajectory, and Michelle Bachmann's trajectory, and so on. Rick Santorum will inevitably follow the same path once he gets properly vetted. Mitt Romney has been unable to stem the bleeding despite his tens of millions.  Just imagine Santorum, with the far more radical record and a continued inability to raise real money. And in any case, it's freaking hilarious. I mean, Rick Santorum? Really? The Republicans have offered up this big, slow, juicy softball. Let's have fun whacking the heck out of it.

Feel free to pick apart their analysis, but it's clear that the Kosmonauts believe Santorum would be the easier mark in a general election.  These are the hardest of the hardcore, too.  The Kos Kids' ringleader urges his disciples to engage not only to help affect the top shelf contest, but because "Nancy Pelosi's gavel and a Senate run by Mitch McConnell" are also at stake.  These people pine for the restoration of Speaker Nancy, and are passionate about retaining Majority Leader Reid.  I simply cannot relate to the mentality of celebrating grating personalities and ineptitude, but then again, I'm not a liberal.  Conservatives -- especially Rush, whose cheeky maneuver Kos is ripping off here -- often say that Republicans shouldn't allow the media and the Left (a redundancy, I realize) to "pick our nominee."  If that's the case, what are we to make of Chris Matthews' assertion that the press is openly rooting for Santorum?  Watch and ponder:
 

Are media types just fond of an old-fashioned, ratings-boosting, ennui-pulverizing political fist fight -- as Matthews suggests -- or are they happy to offer a few primary season assists to the guy they're confident they can destroy in the fall?  Verdict in the comments section, please.

I'd add the obligatory "surprise!" to the headline, but after the Solyndra debacle -- which our perfect president doesn't regret, mind you -- is anyone the least bit shocked by this Washington Post report?
 

Sanjay Wagle was a venture capitalist and Barack Obama fundraiser in 2008, rallying support through a group he headed known as Clean Tech for Obama. Shortly after Obama’s election, he left his California firm to join the Energy Department, just as the administration embarked on a massive program to stimulate the economy with federal investments in clean-technology firms.  Following an enduring Washington tradition, Wagle shifted from the private sector, where his firm hoped to profit from federal investments, to an insider’s seat in the administration’s $80 billion clean-energy investment program.

He was one of several players in venture capital, which was providing financial backing to start-up clean-tech companies, who moved into the Energy Department at a time when the agency was seeking outside expertise in the field. At the same time, their industry had a huge stake in decisions about which companies would receive government loans, grants and support. During the next three years, the department provided $2.4 billion in public funding to clean-energy companies in which Wagle’s former firm, Vantage Point Venture Partners, had invested, a Washington Post analysis found. Overall, the Post found that $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers.

If Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee for president -- which seems like less of a lock than it did even two weeks ago -- Democrats will make a giant hoopla over his "vulture captialism."  Romney's brand of capitalism involved private investors, new private companies started, and struggling companies reinvigorated.  It resulted, overwhelmingly, in success:  Robust return on investments (for investors that included such greedy robber barrons as...public pension funds), tens of thousands of net jobs created (although checkered by a few flops), and, yes, profits.  Barack Obama's vulture crony socialism abused taxpayer money to help out his buddies and political donors.  It resulted in fraud, billions of dollars down the drain, and thousands of jobs lost.  In other words, failure, and not just at Solyndra, but at the eleven "new Solyndras" recently discovered by CBS News.  Even the "successful" investments have failed to live up to Obama's ludicrously sunny promises.  As he and his allies assail Mitt Romney, keep their respective records in mind -- and remember these examples when Obama falsely claims that his 2009 stimulus boondoggle was a "success" that merits a second go-round.  This isn't a hypothetical.  Stimulus 2.0 is embedded in his catastrophic new budget.

Three clips, each one as delicious as the next.  First, watch House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan systematically destroy the Obama budget "savings" farce, a process made even more enjoyable by acting White House Budget Director Jeffrey Zients' feeble attempts to push back:
 

Ryan does a masterful job of puncturing Zients' arguments, but let's reiterate a few points that may have gotten lost in the shuffle.  (1) The White House is claiming that spending cuts within the Budget Control Act of 2011 -- which is entirely separate from the FY 2013 budget -- should count as savings "achieved" by their new proposal.  This is silly on its face, but crosses into laughable territory when one recalls that throughout much of the debt fight, President Obama adamantly opposed a cuts-for-debt-ceiling-hike quid pro quo.  He was on the record in favor of -- demanding, in fact -- zero cuts.  Republicans dragged him into the BCA against his will; now he's trying to take credit for that past action in next year's budget. (2) The White House says Obama's budget "saves" $850 Billion by not fighting two wars at peak spending levels for another full decade.  This money was never proposed because the scenario is pure fiction.  These risible "savings" represent a White House bear-hug of Moon-Yogurt accounting. "Heaven help us" is right. (3) Zients' isn't able to recall how much money this budget adds to the national debt.  You'd think the White House Budget Director would have that figure committed to memory (he likely does, but doesn't want to admit it on camera), but let's help him out:  The budget he's defending adds nearly $11 Trillion to the debt, on top of the roughly $5 Trillion increase over which this president has already presided.  I seem to recall an infamous Right-wing zealot calling this sort of governance "unpatriotic."

Next, we have Rep. Scott Garrett, a strong conservative from Northern New Jersey, asking Zients when the president's budget comes into balance.  Zients refuses to directly respond to the question, perhaps because the correct answer is "never:"
 

Indeed, the closest Obama's budget ever comes to balancing (expenses = revenues) within the ten-year projection window is 2017's annual deficit of $617 Billion, which is still more than double the size of President Bush's average annual deficit. Finally, Garrett lures Zients into a trap over Obamacare.  Garrett asks if a family making less than $250,000 per year ("the rich" cut off) is subject to a tax increase if they fail to comply with Obamacare's individual mandate:
 

The president sold Obamacare to the public by characterizing the resulting mandatory pay-out as a "fine," not a tax increase.  He even mocked George Stephanopoulos' suggestion that it met the dictionary definition of a tax hike.  Once the law passed, however, the administration's lawyers pulled an about-face and have defended the mandate in court by arguing that the fine is, in fact, a tax increase after all.  Zients has apparently reverted back to the outmoded argument, thus undermining his own administration's legal defense of their signature "accomplishment."   Phil Klein has more details and context on this stumble. These are the people running our country, and they think they deserve four more years.

UPDATE - Zients also claims that Obamacare will save money, which is untrue at both the individual and government level.

Yesterday, we reviewed the GOP primary state of play in Michigan and presented a pair of positive ads being run by the Romney and Santorum campaigns.  Predictably, the race is turning negative.  As the Pennsylvanian opens up a 12-point national lead over the former Massachusetts governor, a pro-Romney SuperPAC fires off a fresh advertising volley, focusing on Santorum's record in Washington:
 

Romney critic Phil Klein at the Examiner backs up some of the assertions in this ad, hitting the former Senator over his "big government parochialism:"
 

As a Senator from Pennsylvania, Santorum took earmarks, pushed a support program for dairy farmers, sided with unions and backed steel tariffs. In these instances, when free market principles clashed with local concerns, he abandoned limited government conservatives. A year ago, I asked Santorum about his support for dairy subsidies.

“(T)he milk program, compared to Social Security and all the entitlement programs was a small program about an industry that was struggling in America -- the small farmer in that part of the country,” he told me. “My feeling is, sure, we can have a milk program that has a concentration of milk into big super duper farms in the South and in the West, and we will continue to see the deterioration of rural Pennsylvania, rural New York, and other rural areas. And if people are fine with that, that's fine. I think there's something to be said for having viable businesses in that part of the country to compete.”

Whatever can be said about such a position, it is not the free market position. And during the January 7^th New Hampshire ABC/Yahoo debate, when Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex., has challenged Santorum for being a big spender who sided with against “right to work” laws, he once again cited local concerns.

These are salient criticisms in a Republican primary, but for reasons I discussed yesterday, some are a bit rich coming from the Romney camp.  Santorum fires back at RomneyWorld's attacks in a new ad featuring mud-filled paintballs and a Mitt Romney lookalike:
 

Commentary's John Podhoretz thinks the spot is "sophomoric and unpresidential."  I'm not sure I agree. Presenting a lighthearted counter-punch seems much more effective than, say, Newt's various responses to getting attacked, which primarily consisted of leveling indignant broadsides and whining. Santorum, Inc. had better brace for a lot more of this; RomneyWorld is preparing a multimillion dollar air campaign against his closest rivals in six key states ahead of Super Tuesday.

During last weekend's CPAC gathering here in Washington, I had the chance to interview three influential members of the Beltway Republican establishment: Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, and National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman, Sen. John Cornyn.  In my discussion with Sen. McConnell, I politely challenged him over whether his caucus remains actively committed to the full repeal of Obamacare, and asked how he intends to retaliate against recent unprecedented Democratic power-grabs, if at all.  The full video of that conversation is available HERE.  Up next was Chairman Priebus, assumed the helm at a faltering RNC last year, and is beginning to right the ship.  I asked him why grassroots conservatives should trust, let alone donate to, his organization, and whether or not they'd be pulling punches against the president, as several press reports indicated in late 2011.  Here's our interaction:
 

Finally, I sat down with Sen. Cornyn, who is heading up the NRSC's effort to elect a Republican Senate in 2012.  We ran through fundraising and polling in a slew of key races (I wrote about the big picture HERE), and also previewed the Senator's CPAC address, which offered an unsparing and devastating review of Attorney General Eric Holder's tenure in office.  Beyond that, I also raised the issue of the NRSC's imflammatory decision to back Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio in 2010's GOP Senate primary in Florida.  Have Cornyn & Co actually learned their lesson?
 

Both of these gentlemen said they'd be happy to field questions and constructive challenges from conservatives.  On Twitter, Priebus is @ReincePriebus, and Sen. Cornyn is @JohnCornyn.

Ever since the Obama administration touched off a furious national debate with its decision to require all employers to facilitate and subsidize "free" birth control coverage for their employees, advocates on both sides of the question have sought to position themselves as representative of mainstream public opinion.  Opponents of the unconstitutional mandate have seized upon national polling from Rasmussen Reports, while Obama supporters frequently cite DailyKos-affiliated Democratic pollster PPP.  Here's a look at the two polls' respective outcomes, which seem irreconcilable:
 

Rasmussen- Half of voters do not agree with the Obama administration’s action forcing Catholic institutions to pay for birth control measures that they morally oppose. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 39% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the government should require a church or religious organization to provide contraceptives for women even if it violates their deeply held beliefs. Fifty percent (50%) disagree and oppose such a requirement that runs contrary to strong beliefs...

PPP - A strong majority (57 percent) of voters think that women employed by Catholic hospitals and universities should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women, while only 39 percent say these institutions should be exempted from the requirement that health plans cover prescription birth control with no additional out-of-pocket costs because contraception runs counter to Catholic teachings.

The two polling firms also reached diametrically opposed conclusions about how Catholic voters, who comprise roughly one quarter of the US electorate, view the controversy:
 

Rasmussen - Sixty-five percent (65%) of Catholic voters oppose this requirement, as do 62% of Evangelical Christians, and 50% of other Protestants.

PPP - Notably, a 53 percent majority of Catholics agree with this [mandate], including 60 percent of independents.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that both organizations are equally reputable, employ sound methodologies, and refrain from inventing numbers out of whole cloth (as Daily Kos' previous polling partner did).  With those stipulations in place, what might explain their colliding findings on this hot-button question?  As is so often the case, question wording plays a decisive role in evaluating the disconnect.  Here are the verbatim questions respondents were asked by each firm:
 

Rasmussen - The requirement to provide contraceptives for women violates deeply held beliefs of some churches and religious organizations. If providing such coverage violates the beliefs of a church or religious organization, should the government still require them to provide coverage for contraceptives?

PPP - Some people say that institutions such as Catholic hospitals and universities should be exempted from the requirement that health plans cover prescription birth control with no additional out of pocket costs, because contraception runs counter to Catholic teachings. Other people say that women of all faiths who are employed by Catholic hospitals and universities should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women. Which view do you agree with -- Catholic hospitals and universities should be exempted from covering prescription birth control, or that women who are employed by Catholic hospitals and universities should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women?

The differences in wording and emphasis are stark.  Rasmussen highlights the "violation" of "deeply held" religious beliefs, and asks if the government should "still" require religious organizations to comply, over the religious objections.  If they had used the word "force" or "coerce" in lieu of "require," they would probably have elicited an even more negative response.  PPP, on the other hand, primarily frames the question as an issue of equal "rights" to free contraception.  The wording also appeals to religious pluralism ("women of all faiths"), which may muddy the waters on religious liberty.  In other words, Rasmussen accentuates the fundamental First Amendment issue, while PPP places the "equal right" to free birth control on par with religious considerations.  The first approach draws more attention to the state's unconstitutional intrusion into matters of the church; the second implies that the church may be stepping on the rights of others by abiding by its doctrine within its own institutions. 

Regrettably, Americans are split evenly (at best) over the question of whether no-cost birth control is a "right," as recently imagined by Obama's Department of Health and Human services.  I'm all in favor of affordable access to contraception, but as Wall Street Journal columnist and religious agnostic James Taranto argues, governmental coercion and religious freedom are the bigger issues at stake:
 

This columnist likes birth control a lot. To our mind, it is one of the greatest conveniences of modern life. As we are not Catholic, we don't share the church's moral objections to abortifacient drugs or sterilization procedures. But as we are American, we care a lot about religious liberty, and about liberty more generally. Thus we view the birth-control mandate as a particular outrage and ObamaCare more generally as a monstrosity...Religious liberty--no scare quotes for us--is one of America's basic principles, the first freedom in the Bill of Rights. The separation of church and state protects religious minorities, and nonreligious ones, from the coercive imposition of religious law. It is also a bulwark against a secular government's impositions on private conscience.

It's true that (a) the First Amendment is not absolute (shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater isn't protected free speech), and (b) certain religious practices have been stamped out by the federal government in the past (bigamy, for instance).  On the latter point, there's a meaningful distinction in this case, wherein the government is compelling an affirmative action, rather than forbidding some sort of behavior.  Regarding the former, the First Amendment is as sacrosanct as any of our guaranteed Constitutional liberties, so the "compelling state interest" bar to curtail those freedoms is -- and should be -- unusually high.  Secularists are welcome to make the case that universally free birth control, a "right" that was invented five minutes ago, should supersede the First Amendment's free exercise clause.  Constitutionalists will contend the opposite, and most Americans will agree -- if the issue is presented properly. 

Americans across all levels of civic awareness, and especially younger voters, tend to gravitate toward arguments that employ the language of "rights."  This impulse helps explain why the public opinion on the 'Big Two' social issues are moving in divergent directions.  On marriage, the right of same-sex couples to marry or form a similar union strikes a growing number of voters as more compelling than the nebulous right of society to codify sexual mores.  On abortion, those who prioritize the right of an unborn child not to be dismembered in the womb are approximately neck-and-neck with those who place greater value on a woman's right to choose whether to have her unborn child dismembered -- with Millenials trending more pro-life than the two generations directly preceding them.  As these examples demonstrate, the side that most effectively claims and holds the rhetorical high ground on "rights" often prevails in the court of public opinion, hence the fight playing out in the public arena today.   I'll leave you with a number links to important pieces written about this critical debate:
 

(1) National Review explains why the president's "compromise" solution is nothing of the sort.

(2) Tim Carney and Ross Douthat eviscerate one of the Left's arguments in favor of the mandate.

(3) Prominent Catholic leaders, including members of Notre Dame's faculty, continue to excoriate Obama's decision as a "grave violation of religious freedom."  They're not buying the "compromise," either.

(4) Fifty-nine percent of Catholic voters now disapprove of President Obama's job performance.

(5) The pseudo Obama "accommodation" does not protect self-insured religious institutions, like the Archdiocese of Washington, DC.

UPDATE - Pew research finds that a slim plurality (48-44 percebt) opposes Obama's mandate and say religious organizations should be extended exemptions.  Within the Pew survey, Catholics oppose Obama's decision by a 16-point margin.

UPDATE II - Hot Air's Jazz Shaw posits that a point of departure may the the distinction between churches and religious institutions like schools and hospitals.  Even PPP finds broad opposition to government coercion of the former group.  Even if average folks find an important distinction between churches and those churches' inextricably affiliated organizations, the Supreme Court does not.  Here's their recent unanimous decision, establishing a "ministerial exception" for religious organizations.  Whether that principle applies here may very well end up in court.  It may not be 9-0, but I'd bet the court (which, by the way, includes six Catholics) will strike down the latest violation.

Questions: Whom will Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder endorse in his state's upcoming primary, and will it matter?  Via Politico:
 

The first-term GOP governor provided the timetable [for endorsing] following a speech Monday to the Detroit Economic Club. As for who that candidate will be, Snyder responded by saying: "That's still to be determined." Two of the possible recipients of Snyder's endorsement plan to address the Detroit Economic Club in the days leading up to Michigan's Feb. 28 primary. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum is to speak at the club's luncheon meeting Thursday. And ex-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney plans to speak to the Economic Club on Feb. 24. An endorsement from Snyder would be a good sign for Romney, who's hoping to cement his lead in Michigan, or for Santorum, who's considering mounting a strong campaign against Romney there.

Two more questions: (1) With all due respect, what "lead" is Romney "hoping to cement"?  We explored the latest raft of polling data yesterday, all of which points to a Santorum advantage both in Michigan and nationwide.  Another national poll today bears out that trend. (2) Regardless of whom Snyder decides to back, will it have any impact?  "Major" endorsements haven't exactly helped GOP candidates this cycle.  Newt Gingrich won the coveted New Hampshire Union Leader nod, yet couldn't crack the top three in the state's primary.  Mitt Romney won Nikki Haley's blessing in South Carolina, then lost her state by double digits.  Ditto Tim Pawlenty and Minnesota. 

So where does that leave us in Michigan?  My suspicion is that if Snyder comes out for Santorum, that development would create a much bigger splash than if he chooses Romney.  If a sitting governor and former CEO backs Romney, critics will dismiss that alliance as completely natural and unsurprising.  The media will dutifully report the development, then move along with a shrug.  And "true conservatives" will insist that it's the latest evidence that "the establishment" is "protecting" Romney, or whatever.  If Snyder sides with Santorum, however, it will be treated as another sea change in the race.  Storyline: "Mainstream Republicans in Romney's childhood backyard are spurning him for the emerging conservative frontrunner!"  In other words, Team Romney is likely angling hard for Snyder's backing, if only to deny Santorum those headlines.

Byron York reports that Newt's campaign has effectively conceded Michigan -- opting to focus on Arizona -- so the battle for the Great Lakes State will boil down to another Romney/Santorum face-off.  As the campaign heats up, each campaign is up with new positive ads.  Romney's bio-spot features the candidate driving around his old stomping grounds, while Santorum's hyper-upbeat commercial makes the case that he's the only conservative capable of defeating President Obama in November:
 

Romney also has a worthwhile Op/Ed in today's Detroit News, decrying the rampant "crony capitalism" inherent within Obama's auto bailout (the history of which Obama's been really fudging on the trail, and which ended up losing taxpayers billions).  But will nostalgia and parochial issue positioning be sufficient for Romney to reverse Santorum's Big Mo?  Probably not, and BuzzFeed reports that RomneyWorld is readying a series of criticisms against the former Pennsylvania Senator:
 

In an interview with BuzzFeed, a Romney advisor offered details of the campaign's coming two-front attack, which the campaign expects will be echoed by the Super PAC, which cannot legally coordinate its message, but which has already bought hundreds of thousands of dollars of airtime in key states. "Santorum’s a blank slate, so everyone’s projecting on to him what they want because he’s the last anti-Romney," said the advisor. "Santorum is going to get introduced to people that don’t know him."

The Pennsylvania Republican will "be defined by two things," the advisor said. The first is a comparison to Barack Obama: "He's never run anything," said the advisor. The Pennyslvanian's experience is limited to roles as a legislator and legislative staffer. "The biggest thing he ever ran is his Senate office," he said. The second is a challenge to Santorum's Washington experience. "They’re going to hit him very hard on earmarks, lobbying, voting to raise the federal debt limit five times," said the advisor. "The story of Santorum is going to be told over the next few weeks in a big way."

I think this unnamed advisor is correct that many GOP voters haven't heard certain things about Rick Santorum, and that it's fair game for the Romney campaign to subject Santorum to the searing scrutiny of a top contender.  He hasn't really faced much of that yet, and it's time.  But as I've written repeatedly, I'm not sure how badly Romney can damage Santorum on issues akin to the debt ceiling votes.  Does anyone believe that hypothetical Massachusetts Senator Mitt Romney would have taken an unpopular and principled stand against raising the debt ceiling during the Clinton or Bush years?  Anyone?  It's conceivable that the lobbying stuff might make a dent or two, but as ABC's Amy Walter wrote yesterday, relentless straw-grasping attacks on another rival could weigh down Romney's favorablility numbers even further, especially among independents.  I continue to believe that Romney's strongest path forward is to build a positive, results-focused campaign while pleasantly pointing out that Rick Santorum is a great American who happens to have exactly as much executive experience as candidate Barack Obama did in 2008.  Let surrogates make electability arguments and call attention to a few of Santorum's warts.  For Romney to really go after Santorum from the Right -- where  he lacks credibility -- could backfire. 

I'll say this: It takes quite a spat for the mainstream media to spurn their biggest crush -- on Valentine's Day, no less -- but President Obama's egregious budget has managed to suspend the magic.  To wit, perhaps the most devastatingly truthful paragraph you'll ever read in an Associated Press story about this president:
 

Taking a pass on reining in government growth, President Barack Obama unveiled a record $3.8 trillion election-year budget plan Monday, calling for stimulus-style spending on roads and schools and tax hikes on the wealthy to help pay the costs. The ideas landed with a thud on Capitol Hill. Though the Pentagon and a number of Cabinet agencies would get squeezed, Obama would leave the spiraling growth of health care programs for the elderly and the poor largely unchecked. The plan claims $4 trillion in deficit savings over the coming decade, but most of it would be through tax increases Republicans oppose, lower war costs already in motion and budget cuts enacted last year in a debt pact with GOP lawmakers.

Ouch.  Four sentences of distilled, White House-aggrieving honesty.  Correspondent Andrew Taylor ought to have a back-up career in mind, just in case.  In addition to documenting what the budget doesn't do, Taylor acknowledges that one of the few areas of federal belt-tightening would come at the Pentagon, which tracks perfectly with Obama's well-publicized defense gutting designs. While we're on the subject, check out this stellar chart from the New York Times, which helps visualize Obama's budget priorities.  As someone (I've forgotten who it was) quipped on Twitter yesterday, the next time a Lefty wails about wasteful defense spending, pull up that graphic and laugh at their ignorance.  The truth is that entitlement program obligations dwarf military spending, even though the latter is a Constitutional imperative.  Entitlement spending is by far the biggest driver of our debt, yet all four of this president's budgets have effectively sidestepped any meaningful stab at reform.  (All four have, however, succeeding in racking up annual deficits that exceed $1 Trillion, so there's that).  At yesterday's press briefing ABC News' Jake Tapper helpfully framed Obama's proposals through the prism of an average American family's budget, and posed this challenge to White House spokesman Jay Carney:
 

The president, when he spoke to NOVA students and faculty earlier today acknowledged that the numbers and the budget were so big, they were difficult to talk about. And to break them down, it would be along the lines of a family that makes $29,000 a year spending $38,000 a year, so taking on new debt — $9,000 in new debt, with a $153,000 credit card bill that they were not able to pay down. That would be a way for — like the average American to afford – to understand it. Does that seem responsible?

Carney's response was predictably divorced from reality; he blamed the red ink on the situation Obama "inherited," and praised Obama's "bold" plan.  First of all, what he inherited was a $10.6 Trillion deficit.  Six trillion borrowed dollars later, he's now proposing to swell that debt bubble by an additional $11 Trillion.  Second, the guy's been president for three years.  His "the buck stops back there" routine is just pitiful at this point.  Third, there is nothing "bold" about this budget, other than the stones it takes to produce something so wholly inadequate and try to dress it up as leadership.  Speaking of stones, here's Carney asserting that the plan fulfills a "moral obligation" to cut the debt:
 

"The President’s vision for fulfilling the moral obligation to tackle the debt is contained within the budget he presented today," Carney said today to explain why Obama's budget does not cut more.  "He certainly did not mean last summer that we should contract spending in a way that threw the very fragile recovery at that point into reverse and caused further job loss and inflicted further economic pain on the American people." Carney seemed irritated when a reporter noted that, under Obama's budget, the nation will be $25 trillion in debt by 2022. "I’m sorry, has someone else offered a $25 trillion debt reduction plan?" he asked.  "Because I think I’d be interested to see it."

Well, at least he's learning from his boss -- torching strawmen is an Obama speciality.  Rather than confront the White House budget's glaring shortcomings, Carney instead pivoted to attacking Paul Ryan's 2012 budget as an effort to "decimate" Medicare.  Not only is this a variation on Politifact's lie of the year, it also ignores the empirical fact that the passage of time and basic math will decimate and end Medicare if we do nothing, which is essentially what Obama's budget suggests.  Also, Ryan's 2012 blueprint saved $6.2 Trillion over Obama's offering, passed the House, and garnered 40 votes in the US Senate.  Obama's previous "bold, moral-obligation fulfilling" budget attempt attracted precisely zero votes in Congress.

As a backdrop to all of this state-side excitement, Moody's has just downgraded six European nations.  Another deeply troubled EU member, Greece, has just rolled out another round of severe austerity measures.  The resulting unrest is what happens when an oversized goverment makes oversized promises to an increasingly dependent and entitled populace, then is forced to correct course suddently and painfully.  Coming soon to a city near you?
 

Worth noting: When the US received its first-ever downgrade from S&P last year, one of the explicit reasons cited was Washington's lack of seriousness in curbing spiraling national healthcare costs.  This president has given us Obamacare, which has increased federal healthcare outlays (he promised it would do the opposite), and four straight budgets that are virtually silent on Medicare/Medicaid reform.  Heckuva job, champ.

UPDATE - Allahpundit notes that out of The One's $3.8 Trillion binge, he couldn't spare a few million to fund a successful and popular DC school choice program, which helps rescue poor inner-city students from their chronically failing public schools.  The teachers' unions don't like the competition, so out comes Obama's rarely-used scalpel.  Disgraceful.

UPDATE II - USA Today's editorial board is profoundly unimpressed with Obama's kick-the-can budget, as is liberal WaPo columnist Dana Milbank.